Clinical OMICS

JUL-AUG 2019

Healthcare magazine for research scientists, labs, pathologists, hospitals, cancer centers, physicians and biopharma companies providing news articles, expert interviews and videos about molecular diagnostics in precision medicine

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 48 of 51 July/August 2019 Clinical OMICs 47 mittee. "The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that human genes, when isolated from the genome, are not patent-eligi- ble because they are products of nature." Also testifying during the three days of hearings was Hans Sauer, Ph.D., deputy general counsel and vice presi- dent for intellectual property of the Biotechnology Innova- tion Organization (BIO). In his view, judicial decisions over the past decade regarding patents have created significant uncertainty over what is patentable and not patentable— and has even created the doubt that a patent granted today could later be invalidated by the courts. "If courts continue their current practice of construing judicial exceptions unmoored from the provisions of the Patent Act, without being able to genuinely explain the doc- trinal origins of these exceptions, or even clearly articulat- ing the policies that are to be achieved, it is no exaggeration to say that investment in biotech innovation will sooner or later be negatively affected," Sauer testified. Laws of nature Proponents of a legislative remedy to clarify patent eligibil- ity are based around precedents citing Section 101, set by the Supreme Court on patents directed toward "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." According to Peter O'Neill, executive director of Cleve- land Clinic Innovations, there exists a disconnect between the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) and the courts regarding how to interpret what can be patentable in these cases. O'Neill cited a patent granted to Cleveland Clinic in 2007 for a test developed for Myeloperoxidase (MPO), an enzyme that can indicate a person's risk of car- diovascular disease. The patent was twice challenged in the USPTO and both times found valid—most recently in 2011. In 2015, Cleveland Clinic took legal action against the com- pany True Health Diagnostics for infringing a number of its patents, including the patent issued for MPO testing. In its ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found three of the four Cleveland Clinic patents invalid, citing Supreme Court cases Mayo Collaborative Services v. Pro- metheus Laboratories, Inc. and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Interna- tional as precedent via their rulings of what constituted laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. According to O'Neill's testimony, Cleveland Clinic sought patent protection a second time in 2016 after USPTO patent examiners were provided updated guidance that clarified interpretation of Section 101 involving naturally occurring phenomena, noting that the methodology of detection of naturally occurring phenomena can be patent protected. Armed with this clarifi- cation, Cleveland Clinic again obtained patents for its testing methods, only to see them thrown out once again, this time in the U.S. District Court for the East- ern District of Virginia, which cited the earlier decision against Cleveland Clinic in Ohio as precedent. "The courts' decisions have created new questions about whether patents that apply (to) naturally occurring phenomena will stand in court," O'Neill told the Subcommittee. "Regardless as to how innovative or unique a new product might be, the courts seem to suggest that a product that utilizes a natu- rally occurring phenomena—like diagnostic tests—could be subject to invalidation in court." While Cleveland Clinic and others struggle with what they view as confounding rulings by the courts in their interpretation of Section 101, Sean George, CEO of molec- ular diagnostics company Invitae, believes that the rulings have created a framework for his company to provide a broad swath of innovative products—at lower cost—that are advancing the practice of precision medicine. "In 2012, the idea that we would be the company we are today was anything but obvious. We were turned down by hundreds of investors who said our goal to offer a compre- hensive menu of the world's medical genetic tests at lower prices would never work for one reason: the DNA patent thicket," George noted in his Senate testimony. "Despite the availability of the necessary technology, sequencing handfuls of genes, much less hundreds as we do today, was impossible at that time due to patents on DNA." It was the belief of Invitae's management that the genetic information derived from the U.S. government's taxpay- er-funded investment in the Human Genome Project should not be "locked away in a thicket of patents" that caused the company to file an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Myriad case. "When the AMP v. Myriad decision was handed down in June 2013, our young start-up company celebrated," George said. "We knew it opened a pathway for us and other innovators like us who had new ideas about how the diagnostics industry could be improved and a deep dedication to making it work better for patients and their clinicians." Elizabeth Donley, CEO, NueroPointDx

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Clinical OMICS - JUL-AUG 2019